All table saws are unsafe

[Peter Aeschliman]

I’m sure this law firm is tied to Sawstop.

Tom, that's a really big leap my friend. Is it possible that sawstop went out and hired ambulance chasers to run ads? Yes, I suppose it's possible. Does Sawstop have a motive? Maybe, although the bad press behind that would be massive so that's a bit iffy. But is that fact pattern enough to say you're "sure" the law firms are tied to Sawstop?

Come on man...

I'm in the "I love the sawstop technology, and I own a sawstop saw, but it should be a choice for consumers" camp. The airbag in the car argument is one I've used, but I think the key difference is that airbags save lives, and nearly everybody of driving age drives a car. Risk likelihood multiplied by impact = total risk. Likelihood and impact are both dangerously high for head injuries for car drivers.

It's in a whole other league than table saw amputations.

But for me, I don't want to lose my fingers because I did something careless. So I bought a SS because it was worth it to me. To others, let them take the risk. It's a personal choice and should always be.

[John Donofrio]

It's a personal choice and should always be.

Perfectly said.

[johnny means]

It's a personal choice and should always be.

No, it's not. We're not talking about your or my freedom to what we want. We talking about manufacturers liability for what they choose to sell to the public. As far as I can tell, regulating commerce is as intrisic in our national identity as the Stars and Stripes. I can't sell crack, I need a license to sell liquor or tobacco, taxes have to be paid, prmits need to be filed, zoning laws, noise ordinances, drugs must go through clinical trials, as a society we decide what needs to be regulated. The only real question is "what do we regulate?" In no way am I saying thatI think companies should beheld liable in these cases, but that in a society like ours certain less important "freedoms" are routinely curtailed for the "betterment" of society.Now just because a bunch of old codgers shambling around their work shops dont like it, doesn't put it up their with Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Right to Bare Arms, etc.

[John Donofrio]

No, it's not. We're not talking about your or my freedom to what we want. We talking about manufacturers liability for what they choose to sell to the public. As far as I can tell, regulating commerce is as intrisic in our national identity as the Stars and Stripes. I can't sell crack, I need a license to sell liquor or tobacco, taxes have to be paid, prmits need to be filed, zoning laws, noise ordinances, drugs must go through clinical trials, as a society we decide what needs to be regulated. The only real question is "what do we regulate?" In no way am I saying thatI think companies should beheld liable in these cases, but that in a society like ours certain less important "freedoms" are routinely curtailed for the "betterment" of society.Now just because a bunch of old codgers shambling around their work shops dont like it, doesn't put it up their with Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Right to Bare Arms, etc.

So where does it stop? What about kitchen knives, razor blades, edge trimmers, or anything John Coloccia so eloquently mentions above? Are we trying to regulate/legislate stupidity and carelessness out of society? Is that the end game?

[Rod Sheridan]

So where does it stop? What about kitchen knives, razor blades, edge trimmers, or anything John Coloccia so eloquently mentions above? Are we trying to regulate/legislate stupidity and carelessness out of society? Is that the end game?

John, that's the "Reducto Ad Absurdum" argument.

A tablesaw isn't the same sort of device as a kitchen knife.

There probably were similar arguments made about passive guards on saws, which are now accepted as a standard device..........Rod.

[Peter Aeschliman]

No, it's not. We're not talking about your or my freedom to what we want. We talking about manufacturers liability for what they choose to sell to the public. As far as I can tell, regulating commerce is as intrisic in our national identity as the Stars and Stripes. I can't sell crack, I need a license to sell liquor or tobacco, taxes have to be paid, prmits need to be filed, zoning laws, noise ordinances, drugs must go through clinical trials, as a society we decide what needs to be regulated. The only real question is "what do we regulate?" In no way am I saying thatI think companies should beheld liable in these cases, but that in a society like ours certain less important "freedoms" are routinely curtailed for the "betterment" of society.Now just because a bunch of old codgers shambling around their work shops dont like it, doesn't put it up their with Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Right to Bare Arms, etc.

This is exactly the point I'm raising by comparing the airbag to the sawstop.

Somewhere, a line in the sand is drawn and some consumer products are required to have certain safety features (or precedent from civil suits create so much liability for manufacturers that they have to adopt such safety features) and other potentially dangerous products do not. So it's a spectrum. Where do we draw the line?

To Rod's point on the reducto ad absurdum argument, it goes both ways. A kitchen knife is not the same as a table saw, just like a car is not the same as a table saw (regarding the airbag). Where do we draw that line? I'm certainly not against laws that protect the public.

[David Kumm]

I'm not an over regulation guy, but if the government determines the technology should be mandated, it should then become public domain. If the public good is important enough, personal profit should be sacrificed. See how slippery a slope it becomes? Dave

[Erik Loza]

I've been in commercial shops and seen people do things like remove the factory-provided sawguards, work a shaper that has just the spindle and tool sticking up, with no hood or anything, jointers with no guards, and stuff like that. Some of these shops have been my customers for years and have no job-related injuries. On the other hand, my dad was an industrial arts teacher for many years and has told me about some gruesome injuries he witnessed in his classroom, a supervised envirnonment. Guess what I take from all that is that people are going to do what they are going to do and you can still get hurt by a "safe" machine when you aren't paying attention. I don't know how you make a saw that absolutely, positively is incapable of injuring someone? Just my thoughts,

Erik Loza
Minimax USA

[Erik Christensen]

yah a tablesaw isn't the same sort of device as a kitchen knife... but do you really think that if successful (success to a mass tort attorney = big $$ from some deep pockets) in forcing every tablesaw manufacturer to pony up settlement money and adopt some type of flesh sensing technology that they would just stop there?? hey we got 450 million from the table saw guys - lets all retire OR what is the second most common WW tool - jointer - lets do those guys next? Anybody want to put money on the quit & retire option - I'll give you 2 to 1 odds and take all you want to bet. then where do you draw the line - bandsaws? shapers? Radial arm saws? Drill press? hand tools?

look around your shop and tell me how much of a hobby you would have if every power tool you own cost twice a much as it does today. don't think lawyers can't kiil an entire industry even there are lots of willing customers just look at the US aircraft industry over the last 30 years.

[Huck Schwee]

There was a case we talked about in school several years ago that was very similar in some regards to the SawStop technology. Here is a short summary of it: http://ww2.roanoke.com//news/roanoke%5c12487.html

Basically, a kid got ran over by a riding lawnmower and the parents sued the lawnmower manufacturer. There were a type of safeguard technology available for the mower (shut-off blades in reverse) but this particular model didn't have that feature.

Interesting to think about.

[John TenEyck]

It stops when people accept responsibility for their own actions instead of hiring lawyers to sue. Frivolous lawsuits would never happen, and lawyers would have nothing to prosecute, if not for a public trying to be compensated for the consequences of their own misuse, abuse, and stupidity related to power tools, and a lot more.

John

[Rod Sheridan]

Peter I agree with you, however lets look at this example of a machine almost all of us have in our home.

This machine has a safety guard, with an electrical interlock that prevents you from running the machine with the guard not in place.

I bet you have never complained about the safety interlock, or wanted it defeated so you could run the machine without the guard in place, and if I suggested that I wanted to be able to run the machine without the guard in place you would think me stupid.

Do you know what the guard is?

It's a metal plate with small holes in it that you look through. It's installed in the door of your microwave oven, and the holes are large enough that you can see through, yet small enough that they prevent the radio frequency waves from passing through the guard and leaving the oven.

What about my right to stir my soup while the oven is running? They don't need these guards and interlocks because I'm smart enough to stay far enough away form that magnetron..................Or saw blade.

See, to a lot of people, including people who make the laws in our countries, that's what the anti tablesaw safety legislation people sound like.

I don't see a lot of talk about how the interlock on the oven raised the price of the oven ( which it did), or how I need to be able to choose one without a safety interlock.

Yet bring up SS and that's exactly where the discussion goes.

I do understand the cost issue, my saw at home was about $10K in total so a couple of hundred for SS technology isn't an issue, yet it can be an issue for the $200 portable saw.

So for the $200 saw you add an electrical interlock that won't allow the saw to be operated with the guard removed. Is it as good as SS? No it's not, however it's much better than no guard on the saw.

We're at the SS discussion stage because we as consumers, often removed the guards from our saws, and then had blade contact injuries. If we weren't having blade contact injuries Mr. Gass wouldn't have devoted that much time and money into solving the problem through an active system.

We will unfortunately get a solution forced upon us if we can't produce a substantial reduction in injuries through the use of guards and safe operating methods.

regards, Rod.

[Peter Aeschliman]

I don't know how you make a saw that absolutely, positively is incapable of injuring someone?

Erik, trust me. I might be one of the best examples of this- I have a huge scar on my forehead from a kickback injury I experienced while using my sawstop! Why? Because I'm an idiot and I did something I shouldn't have.

But is the goal here to make a saw "that absolutely, positively is incapable of injuring someone?" I don't think so. I think the goal here is to reduce injuries. It's not a black or white thing. Some saws are less dangerous than others, but none of them are (or ever will be) completely danger-free. Doesn't mean we should give up on trying to make them safer.

[Jim Matthews]

There's a proven technology, readily available that makes kickback impossible.
It's both inexpensive, reliable and easily adopted.

It's known as a bandsaw.

[Peter Aeschliman]

I hear you completely, Rod. I don't agree with the arguments that paint this as a black and white, "either I have 100% freedom or no freedom at all" arguments. They miss the point, and that's where these threads devolve into gorilla-like chest thumping of two groups on extreme ends of the spectrum who show no willingness to think through the real complexities of the issue.

The point is not whether consumer safety regulation should exist in general. It's really a question of when or where such regulations should be applied. It's tough to come to an answer to that, and I think that's often why this important and nuanced discussion doesn't happen.

Here are the factors I consider:

• The question of risk, measured in terms of likelihood of an adverse event and the impact of that event. I think this is one factor.
• I think another factor is the cost to the public.
  
  • Medical Bills... Obviously the system is different in Canada, but when an uninsured construction worker cuts his finger off, we don't tell him to spit on in and rub some mud on it. We rush him in an ambulance to the emergency room, doctors fix him up, and the hospital eats the cost. To make money, the hospitals raise their "prices" on those who are able to pay their bills.
  • There's also disability insurance, which raises premiums on business owners to cover the costs of these injuries.
  
  
• Cost to consumers via higher prices.
• Whether the inherent danger of the product itself is obvious enough to a reasonable consumer at the time of purchase to rationalize that they accept some degree of liability by purchasing it.

It takes smart and reasonable people (typically, legislators and judges) to go through these factors and make the best decisions they can with the greater good in mind.

For me, in the absence of any regulations, I chose to buy a sawstop. Without the above data, who knows what the right decision is, and what point is there in arguing either way?